Hi Bob,
With Pat leading the technical discussion, I'm just going to drop in a
couple of minor process points here.
At 13:41 09/01/2003 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
[...]
>>Yes, the WG has decided, nodes of rdf:type rdf:Statement *are* statings,
>>I think you guys should accept that and move on.
>
>I apologize for my ignorance on WG decisions; I missed this particular
>one. I would appreciate someone mailing me a pointer to the published
>decision.
As a general rule, resolution of WG issues can be found from the WG Issues
document. In this case the URL to appropriate section of that doc is:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements
There is also another issue which may be related to your concerns, that the
WG postponed for consideration by a future WG:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts
The WG is now (I hope) very close to publishing its last call
documents. If you remain unconvinced about the WG's decision, I suggest
you make this comment again as a last call comment. The WG will consider
that comment and any support it receives.
A couple of other remarks:
o there are two concepts - statements and statings and only one bit of
vocabulary. The WG, for reasons that Pat has explained picked one for the
existing vocabulary, and as Pat also mentioned, that does not preclude
you, or anyone else, from defining new vocabulary for the missing
concept. That is the sort of thing that could be worked out in the
interest group, and possibly published as a W3C note.
o I have an association with the Jena project, and being careful to keep
my role in the WG distinct, I do know that the current Jena implementation
of reification is an engineering compromise designed to meet the pragmatic
needs of users. As WG co-chair, I'd encourage you to work with tool
developers to explore how to meet your needs. Such practical experience
will be invaluable input to a future WG considering the postponed issue.
Brian